Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
Discussion
news.com.au said:
Evolution in the bible, says Vatican
From:
By Martin Penner
November 07, 2005
THE Vatican has issued a stout defence of Charles Darwin, voicing strong criticism of Christian fundamentalists who reject his theory of evolution and interpret the biblical account of creation literally.
Cardinal Paul Poupard, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said the Genesis description of how God created the universe and Darwin's theory of evolution were "perfectly compatible" if the Bible were read correctly.
His statement was a clear attack on creationist campaigners in the US, who see evolution and the Genesis account as mutually exclusive.
"The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," he said at a Vatican press conference. He said the real message in Genesis was that "the universe didn't make itself and had a creator".
This idea was part of theology, Cardinal Poupard emphasised, while the precise details of how creation and the development of the species came about belonged to a different realm - science. Cardinal Poupard said that it was important for Catholic believers to know how science saw things so as to "understand things better".
His statements were interpreted in Italy as a rejection of the "intelligent design" view, which says the universe is so complex that some higher being must have designed every detail.
Changing their tune a bit, but then I guess they are used to being wrong about stuff like this by now
Thats it,...twsist things around so they don't look complete idiots... jesus had A tvr too... Unfortunately they have been messing with the bible for years. mary was only a virgin after the 18th century if I remember correctly. I'd trust the church as much as I trust any other big multi-national company...
It's an interesting subject.
If you read Genesis and the Bible's version of how the world was created in seven days, you'll notice something fascinating. Namely, all six are exactly in the right order (chaos - calm - life in water - life on land - humans. This "coincidence" has had some scientists fascinated for some time. Some religious leaders interpret the 6 day creation story as "God telling the story of evolution in a simple (Janet & John) way.
If you read Genesis and the Bible's version of how the world was created in seven days, you'll notice something fascinating. Namely, all six are exactly in the right order (chaos - calm - life in water - life on land - humans. This "coincidence" has had some scientists fascinated for some time. Some religious leaders interpret the 6 day creation story as "God telling the story of evolution in a simple (Janet & John) way.
srebbe64 said:
It's an interesting subject.
If you read Genesis and the Bible's version of how the world was created in seven days, you'll notice something fascinating. Namely, all six are exactly in the right order (chaos - calm - life in water - life on land - humans. This "coincidence" has had some scientists fascinated for some time. Some religious leaders interpret the 6 day creation story as "God telling the story of evolution in a simple (Janet & John) way.
So where does the snake/apple come into it?
Carrera2 said:
It's an interesting subject.
If you read Genesis and the Bible's version of how the world was created in seven days, you'll notice something fascinating. Namely, all six are exactly in the right order (chaos - calm - life in water - life on land - humans. This "coincidence" has had some scientists fascinated for some time. Some religious leaders interpret the 6 day creation story as "God telling the story of evolution in a simple (Janet & John) way.
So where does the snake/apple come into it?
That's nothing to do with ideas of creation and evolution, it's a story full of symbolism and all sorts!
srebbe64 said:
...Some religious leaders interpret the 6 day creation story as "God telling the story of evolution in a simple (Janet & John) way.
This is exactly the way it was put across in the church I used to go to when I was younger. Also I was told by a theologean who's working on the original text that the word 'virgin' wasn't used but that the greek/aramaic/whatever work translated more as 'unmarried'.
andy mac said:
Thats it,...twsist things around so they don't look complete idiots... jesus had A tvr too... Unfortunately they have been messing with the bible for years. mary was only a virgin after the 18th century if I remember correctly. I'd trust the church as much as I trust any other big multi-national company...
No. They are just revising their opinion. Remember that evolution is still, compared to religion, a very new idea. The Vatican does not accept every scientific new theory or interpretation of the Bible that comes along as so many of them are later revised or shown to be wrong! Evolution has now been around for a while and is generally accepted so the Vatican has to acknowledge it. Don't kid yourself that evolution is proven though, it's still a theory!
The virgin bit is interesting. At the time the Bible was begining to be translated into new languages, i.e. other than Latin, and the original text is a bit vague. It could mean any of the following:-
Virgin, as we currently understand it.
A young woman.
An unmarried woman.
A novice of the Essenes (Joseph was associated with the Essenes and it is possible that she was officially known as a virgin, i.e. it was her title)
The emphasis on virgin = good roughly coincides with the spread of syphilis, brought back from America, in the 16th century. The disease is deadly and an STD so protecting the masses by changing emphasis may have been on the agenda.
I suppose this thread will now degenerate into a slagging off of religion by people who have never even read Genesis.
cymtriks said:
The emphasis on virgin = good roughly coincides with the spread of syphilis, brought back from America, in the 16th century. The disease is deadly and an STD so protecting the masses by changing emphasis may have been on the agenda.
Are you sure? Virginity has been popular for quite some time, a good way of 'guaranteeing' that you are the father prior to todays DNA testing. Of course most women couldn't wait to get married because then they could fool around as much as they liked
cymtriks said:
Don't kid yourself that evolution is proven though, it's still a theory!
Evolution is demonstrably a fact. Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection, is one of a number of theories which attempt to explain the fact of evolution, and has been heavily modified since it's first formulation. In it's modified form it fits the evidence better than any competing idea.
srebbe64 said:
It's an interesting subject.
Some religious leaders interpret the 6 day creation story as "God telling the story of evolution in a simple (Janet & John) way.
which would make sense even more if you imagine it all in a chinese whispers and dumbing down to the lowest denominator type way
cymtriks said:
Don't kid yourself that evolution is proven though, it's still a theory!
Utter garbage I'm afraid. Theory means something rather more concrete in scientific terms.
dictionary said:
In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.
Gravity is also a theory. Perhaps the creationists would like to take that one on and float away.
The Vatican endorsed Darwin over 50 years ago.
It's not the Catholic Church which tends to have problems with modern scientific explanations of the Universe and evolution of life. It's the fundamentalist Protestant Churches, mostly American based, which are far more likely to take this "fundamental" view that every single word in The Bible is true.
It's not the Catholic Church which tends to have problems with modern scientific explanations of the Universe and evolution of life. It's the fundamentalist Protestant Churches, mostly American based, which are far more likely to take this "fundamental" view that every single word in The Bible is true.
Einion Yrth said:
Don't kid yourself that evolution is proven though, it's still a theory!
Evolution is demonstrably a fact. Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection, is one of a number of theories which attempt to explain the fact of evolution, and has been heavily modified since it's first formulation. In it's modified form it fits the evidence better than any competing idea.
Just because a theory fits most of the data most of the time does not make it demonstably a fact. What do you mean by the latest version?
Also creation at some distant time past does not preclude subsequent evolution, either by chance or by devine plan.
Mr E said:
Don't kid yourself that evolution is proven though, it's still a theory!
Utter garbage I'm afraid. Theory means something rather more concrete in scientific terms.
dictionary said:
In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.
Gravity is also a theory. Perhaps the creationists would like to take that one on and float away.
No, gravity is a law. That it exists is unquestionable, how it works is a total mystery.
Evolution while predictive, logical and not falsifiable, is not testable. When rabbits evolve to be able to look both ways before crossing a road it will have been tested.
For the sake of argument I reject evolution of virus etc. as proof that complex animals have evolved.
I believe evolution to be true by the way.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff